alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ORIGINAI 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

OP 23-0561 

STEVEN JUSTIN HEDRICK, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

ORDER 

MONTANA ELEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COURT, FLATHEAD COUNTY, HONORABLE 

AMY EDDY, Presiding, 

Respondent. 

FILED 

OCT 3 1 2023 

Bowan Greenwood 

Clerk of Supreme Court 

State of Montana 

Petitioner Steven Justin Hedrick, via counsel, seeks a writ of supervisory control 

directing the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, to vacate its September 22, 

2023 Order Denying Motion to Strike 9/25/2023 Jury Panel in that court's Cause No. 

DC-12-052(A). Hedrick alleges that structural error occurred in the jury selection process 

because the Flathead County Clerk of Court did not substantially comply with § 3-15-405, 

MCA, by not "following up" with prospective jurors who failed to respond to the Jury 

Notice and that the District Court did not provide adequate remedy via its rulings in this 

case. Hedrick further seeks a stay of his jury trial, set to commence September 25, 2023, 

pending resolution of this petition for writ. 

After receiving Hedrick's petition for writ, we requested the District Court to file a 

summary response pursuant to M. R. App. P. 14(7). On October 12, 2023, the District 

Court responded and stated that on September 22, 2023, it had issued an Order to Stay Jury 

Trial that vacated the September 25, 2023 setting, thereby releasing the 9/25/2023 Jury 

Panel which was the subject of Hedrick's motion to strike. The District Court further 

advises us that it issued an Order Setting Jury Trial on October 2, 2023, setting this matter 

for a jury trial commencing November 6, 2023, with a newly drawn jury list. The court 

further explains that the Flathead County Clerk of District Court has provided a certified 

10/31/2023

Case Number: OP 23-0561
list to the Flathead County Sheriff of the individuals who had not responded to the previous 

jury notices and the Sheriff s Office will personally serve these individuals. 

Thus, the matters for which Hedrick sought the writ have been addressed and 

resolved by the District Court. As such, it is not necessary for this Court to take further 

action in this matter at this time. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the petition for a writ of supervisory control 

is DENIED and DISMISSED. 

The Clerk is directed to provide immediate notice of this Order to counsel for 

Petitioner, all counsel of record in the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, 

Cause No. DC-12-052(A nd the Honorable Amy Eddy, presiding. 

DATED this 31 Cray of October, 2023. 

Chief Justice 

2
Offer Letter



 Exhibit 10.20 
 

 
 December 22, 2008 
 Dr. Steven A. Nichtberger 
 RE: Tengion,
Inc. 
 Dear Steven: 
 As you
may be aware, in 2007 the Internal Revenue Service issued regulations under Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”), which become effective on January 1, 2009. Section 409A establishes strict rules for payment
of deferred compensation. Failure to comply with the regulations can result in significant adverse tax consequences for you. 
 Under the terms
of your employment offer letter dated May 25, 2004, you are eligible for an annual merit bonus based upon your achievement of certain company and personal objectives, which are set annually by Tengion’s Board of Directors. Your offer
letter does not, however, specify the time period in which such merit bonus must be paid. So as to exempt such amounts from the requirements of Section 409A, all such amounts will be paid by Tengion no later than two (2) months following
the year of service to which the amount relates. This merely memorializes our historical practice. 
 Additionally, under the terms of your
employment offer letter, you are eligible for certain severance payments upon an involuntary termination of employment. In order to exempt such amounts from the requirements of Section 409A, each monthly payment shall be considered a separate
payment, and to the extent necessary, any amount in excess of two times the lesser of your annual compensation or the Code section 401(a)(17) limit (which for 2008 is $230,000), shall be paid no later than two (2) months following the end of
the calendar year in which your termination of employment occurs. 







 Steven A. Nichtberger 
 December 22, 2008 
 Page 2 of 2 
 Please countersign sign this letter acknowledging your acceptance of the above modification to your offer letter. Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. 
 Sincerely, 
  

	
	
	/s/    Gary L. Sender
	Gary L. Sender

 Vice President and Chief Financial Officer 
 Agreed and Acknowledged this      day of 
 December, 2008 
  

	
	
	/s/    Steven A. Nichtberger
	Steven A. Nichtberger
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 4742

_____________________________
H ENRY L YNN , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. James C. Hankinson , Judge

. October 23, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. R AY , C.J., and W OLF and M AKAR , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Candice Kaye Brower, Regional Counsel, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Conflict , Gainesville ; and Melissa Joy Ford
, Assistant Conflict Counsel, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, Tallahassee, for Appellant ; Henry Lynn,
pro se , Appellant

. Ashley Moody
, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
#### In the Matter of Kelly A. and Another, Infants. Ghyslaine G., Appellant; Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent.

[945 NYS2d 293]—

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Monica Drinane, J.), entered on or about August 11, 2010, which, upon a fact-finding determination that respondent mother had neglected her children, ordered the children released to their father’s custody without supervision, awarded respondent supervised visitation, and ordered her to complete certain services and not to engage in any further acts of domestic violence in the presence of the children or their father, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The finding of neglect was supported by a preponderance of the evidence *(see*Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]; *Matter of Tammie*Z., 66 NY2d 1, 3 [1985]). The record establishes that while in the presence of the subject children, respondent engaged in an act of domestic violence against the children’s father when she attacked him, hitting him over the head multiple times as he bent down to pick up the couple’s then one-year-old son. The attack rendered the father unconscious, and he awoke to the couple’s then six-year-old daughter crying and tending to his bleeding head wounds. When describing the incident to the caseworker in the following weeks and months, the daughter became visibly upset and emotionally distraught. Under these circumstances, the court properly found that due to the mother’s actions, both children were placed in imminent risk of physical harm and that, at the very least, the elder child suffered emotional harm *(see*Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i]; *see Matter of Jared S. [Monet S.],*78 AD3d 536 [2010], *lv denied,*16 NY3d 705 [2011]).

We see no reason to disturb the court’s evaluation of the evidence, including its credibility determinations, as its findings are clearly supported by the record *(see Matter of Ilene M.,*19 AD3d 106 [2005]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Moskowitz and Acosta, JJ.
#### Mr. Ho Charter Service, Inc., Respondent, v Edward G. Ho, Appellant.

[942 NYS2d 531]

*632Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenny, J), entered on or about August 1, 2011, which, upon defendant’s default, struck defendant’s answer and directed an inquest, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable order. Order, same court and Justice, entered August 17, 2011, which denied defendant’s motion to vacate the order entered on or about August 1, 2011, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, the motion granted, the order entered on or about August 1, 2011 vacated, the answer reinstated, and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

The order entered on or about August 1, 2011 is nonappealable, as it was entered on default within the meaning of CPLR 5511 *(see Armin A. Meizlik Co. Inc. v L&K Jewelry Inc.,*68 AD3d 530, 531 [2009]).

The motion to vacate the order entered on or about August 1, 2011 should have been granted, as defendant demonstrated a meritorious defense and a reasonable excuse for failing to appear at a preliminary conference *(see Armin,*68 AD3d at 531; CPLR 5015 [a] [1]). Defendant showed that his failure to appear was neither willful nor a pattern of dilatory behavior, but was simply the result of illness and inadvertent law office failure. Indeed, defendant submitted affirmations by his attorneys stating that they failed to note the scheduled preliminary conference date set forth in two prior orders, that the primary attorney assigned to the case was sick and unable to attend the scheduled conference, and that a substitute attorney from the same law office had advised the court that she would not be able to arrive to the conference by the scheduled time *(see Armin,*68 AD3d at 531; *Chelli v Kelly Group, P.C.,*63 AD3d 632 [2009]).

Plaintiff’s corporate records and the affidavits based on personal knowledge submitted by the parties, together with prior orders of the court that evaluated the evidence and denied plaintiff injunctive relief, demonstrate merit to the defense. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Sweeny, Moskowitz, Abdus-Salaam and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 32(a)

                 CERTIFICATION BY THE PRESIDENT RELATING TO THE
                 ANNUAL REPORT CONTAINING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

     I, Leonard A. Cullo, Jr., Director and President of H.J. Heinz Finance
Company, a Delaware corporation ("Heinz Finance"), hereby certify that, to my
knowledge:

     1. Heinz Finance's annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
        April 28, 2004 (the "Form 10-K") fully complies with the requirements of
        Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
        amended; and

     2. The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all
        material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
        Heinz Finance.

Date: July 16, 2004

                                          By: /s/ LEONARD A. CULLO, JR.
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Name:   Leonard A. Cullo, Jr.
                                            Title:  Director and President
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the amended special financial report of Desert Hawk Gold Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A-1 for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), the undersigned principal executive and financial officer of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:  August 9, 2011





/s/ Robert E. JorgensenRobert E. Jorgensen, CEO(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02

- 20

- 00136

- CR

___________________________

On Appeal from the 78th District Court

Wichita County, Texas

Trial Court No. DC30

- CR2020

- 0546

Before Womack, J.; Sudderth, C.J.; and Wallach, J.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### E X PARTE 

### A NTHONY 

### J AMES 

### F OREMAN2 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

Appellant has moved to di smiss his appeal. Because we have not yet decided

this case, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a),

43.2(f).

Per Curiam

Do Not Publish

Tex. R. App

. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: October 22, 2020
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-2118

HERBERT MCKINNEY; HUBERT MCKINNEY,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Secretary,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Joseph Robert Goodwin, District

Judge. (CA-95-160-5)

Submitted: March 7, 2000 Decided: March 17, 2000

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Theodore R. Dues, Jr., Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellants.

Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, Michael L. Keller,

Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Herbert and Hubert McKinney appeal the district court’s order

granting partial summary judgment to Defendant. We have reviewed

the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. See McKinney v. United States Dep’t of Labor, No. CA-95-

160-5 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 25, 1996). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-25-1999             DEC-25-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-27-1999             DEC-27-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-25-1999             SEP-25-1999
<CASH>                                             978                     978
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,037                   1,037
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                     38,393                  38,393
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                42,908                  42,908
<PP&E>                                          19,109                  19,109
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,267                   7,267
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  61,431                  61,431
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           29,171                  29,171
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                            69                      69
<OTHER-SE>                                      30,475                  30,475
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    61,431                  61,431
<SALES>                                         29,671                  81,267
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                29,671                  81,267
<CGS>                                           15,906                  43,056
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,709                  33,579
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,156                   6,911
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 317                     875
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (417)                 (3,154)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        92                 (1,099)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (509)                 (2,055)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (509)                 (2,055)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.07)                  (0.30)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.07)                  (0.30)


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 137 (Wednesday, July 21, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38525-38526]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15524]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration #17037 and #17038; ILLINOIS Disaster Number IL-
00064]


Administrative Declaration of a Disaster for the State of 
Illinois

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a 
disaster for the State of Illinois dated 07/16/2021.
    Incident: Tornado.
    Incident Period: 06/21/2021.

DATES: Issued on 07/16/2021.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 09/14/2021.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 04/18/2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster 
loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally 
announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:

Primary Counties: DuPage.
Contiguous Counties:
    Illinois: Cook, Kane, Kendall, Will.

    The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Physical Damage:
  Homeowners with Credit Available Elsewhere.................      3.250
  Homeowners without Credit Available Elsewhere..............      1.625
  Businesses with Credit Available Elsewhere.................      5.760
  Businesses without Credit Available Elsewhere..............      2.880
  Non-Profit Organizations with Credit Available Elsewhere...      2.000
  Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere      2.000
For Economic Injury:
  Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives without Credit      2.880
   Available Elsewhere.......................................
  Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere      2.000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 17037 C 
and for economic injury is 17038 0.
    The State which received an EIDL Declaration # is Illinois.


[[Page 38526]]


(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

Isabella Guzman,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2021-15524 Filed 7-20-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8026-03-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Whitfield, Appellant.

[941 NYS2d 893]

Garry, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (R. Sise, J.), rendered November 5, 2010 in Schenectady County, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.

In November 2009, an 11-count indictment was handed up against defendant which included, among other things, multiple counts of criminal possession of a weapon. Ultimately, in November 2010, he pleaded guilty to one count of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, waived his right to appeal and was sentenced, pursuant to a plea agreement, to two years in prison followed by three years of post-release supervision. Defendant appeals and we affirm.

Although defendant’s challenge to the voluntariness of his plea survives his valid waiver of appeal, it is unpreserved for this Court’s review by his failure to move to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction *(see People v Martinez Velazquez,*89 AD3d 1318, 1319 [2011]; *People v Abrams,*75 AD3d 927, 928 [2010], *lv denied*15 NY3d 918 [2010]). Further, although defendant made passing reference to his purported dissatisfaction with counsel, he made no statements during the plea allocution that raised doubts about his guilt or negated any material element of the crime, and thus the narrow exception to the preservation requirement does not apply *(see People v Sherman,*91 AD3d 982, 983 [2012]; *People v Campbell,*89 AD3d 1279, 1279 [2011]).

Mercure, J.P., Lahtinen, Spain and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
# C_2020209EN.01002501.xml

| 22.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2020 — Abarca v EUIPO — Abanca Corporación Bancaria (ABARCA SEGUROS)

(Case T-106/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark ABARCA SEGUROS - Earlier EU word mark ABANCA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 209/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Abarca — Companhia de Seguros SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: J. Pimenta and Á. Pinho, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: G. Schneider, J. Crespo Carrillo and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Abanca Corporación Bancaria, SA (Betanzos, Spain) (represented by: M. Aznar Alonso, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 November 2018 (Case R 1370/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Abanca Corporación Bancaria and Abarca — Companhia de Seguros.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Abarca — Companhia de Seguros SA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Abanca Corporación Bancaria, SA. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Abarca — Companhia de Seguros SA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Abanca Corporación Bancaria, SA.

---

(1)  OJ C 131, 8.4.2019.

---